Shots In The Dark: Reviving the Re-Ethicist

Sunday, July 24, 2024

Reviving the Re-Ethicist

Perhaps you noticed that the Re-Ethicist was missing last week. Mea culpa. I was stuck in my bedroom, mired in a weekend of passionate...um...house-painting. (A combination of Brazilian blue and Swiss blue, if you must know. Individually they're very nice; together, even better!) And once in the middle of house-painting, you really have to finish. It's kind of addictive that way.

However, I'm happy to announce that the Re-Ethicist is back!

This week, Randy Cohen, a.k.a. the Ethicist, responds to a letter from Jo Sanders of Seattle. Along with her husband, Jo went to see her son participate in an improv comedy competition, the winner to be determined by audience vote. She thought that her son's team was not the best, so she voted for another team. Her husband agreed with her estimation, but voted for his son's team out of loyalty. "Who was right?"

Randy Cohen, a.k.a. the Ethicist, replies, "I'm with your husband."

Wrong!

" Your husband could more convincingly argue that by soliciting votes from an audience with obvious personal ties to participants, the venue surrendered any hope of a dispassionate verdict," Cohen writes.

This strikes me as a fancy way of saying that two wrongs make a right. They're biased, so you can be too.

But let us consider this event from its impact on the boy. There is no satisfaction in a hollow victory. Chances are that Ms. Sanders' son knows his group wasn't the best. (And if he doesn't, he might want to consider another hobby.) Knowing his secondary status and yet winning would only teach the youth that the best way to get ahead is not on merit, not on ability, but by stacking the deck.

Let me close by pondering the premise of Ms. Sanders' question: "Who was right?"

In this situation, two people took two different actions, each for what they considered moral reasons. Must one be right and the other wrong? Can not two people be right at the same time? And correspondingly, are they not both wrong at the same time?

Discuss.

In this situation, there is no such thing as Truth. There is just one truism: Randy Cohen, a.k.a. the Ethicist, is wrong!

¶ 8:44 AM

Comments:

Paint fumes effect reading comprehension.

Read the Ethicist this morning. Have not even read your revival, but instantly realize it can't be worth finishing because right off the bat you're Wrong!

It was not their son. They were invited by their friends to this event. It was their friends' son they were watching compete.
Mr. Cohen's decision was based on THAT very big discrepancy, Rich. He felt that because it was their friends' son that they needed to weigh that into their decision, and I agree. They were brought to the competition to stack the decks, obviously.

I wonder if it's safe to trust your opinion on other news items you are commenting on if you can't even read the original story with any comprehension whatsoever.
I linked over to your site from Arianna Huffington's.
You did the same thing with your post on Roman Polanski. Roman Polanski won his libel suit. That means that VF could not prove that those comments were made at all. Nowhere did I read that the Mr. Polanski said those things simply after the funeral. That was what VF alleged, and they lost the case. If that had been the case, that ROman Polansky said those things, just at a different time, they would only have awarded him 1.00, as English law allows for contemptuous damages. This is what VF was hoping would happen.
They awarded Polanski far more than a dollar, more like 80,000 plus... that says they believed he never brought Sharon Tate's name up in such a way based on the testimony they heard.

You seem like a smart guy. So what is with the selective reading?

# posted by matt in brooklyn : 11:39 AM

you're wrong.
it wasn't their kid.
they were brought by a friend to see his kid, probably to vote for the kid. and that is what she should have done. voted for her friend's kid. her husband new to do this.
if i didn't go back and read the original question that this woman sent to the ethicisit guy I might agree with you. you obviously don't have children.
this is what it means to be a parent.

# posted by Anonymous : 5:17 PM

Okay, okay—it wasn't their kid! Forgive my Sunday morning grogginess. But that really doesn't change the issue, now does it? If anything, it only strengthens my argument.

Matt—I stand by what I wrote about RP and his libel suit, but yes, it's true that VF couldn't prove that what it said happened, happened—at least, not to the jury's satisfaction. My point is that under American law, they wouldn't have had to. The burden of proof would have to have been on Polanski to show that VF knew the item was wrong and printed it anyway. Essentially, you can't get sued for printing a mistake, if you've done it in good faith. (And especially if you correct it afterward.)

For what it's worth, I found the testimony to the effect that Polanski had hit on this woman at Elaine's credible.

# posted by richard : 9:01 AM

About Me